Compilation strategy

[Walter Bright]

On 12/17/2012 3:03 PM, deadalnix wrote:
> I know that. I not arguing against that. I'm arguing against the fact that this
> is a blocker. This is blocker in very few use cases in fact. I just look at the
> whole picture here. People needing that are the exception, not the rule.

I'm not sure what you mean. A blocker for what?


> And what prevent us from using a bytecode that loose information ?

I'd turn that around and ask why have a bytecode?


> As long as it is CTFEable, most people will be happy.

CTFE needs the type information and AST trees and symbol table. Everything 
needed for decompilation.

I know that bytecode has been around since 1995 in its current incarnation, and 
there's an ingrained assumption that since there's such an extensive ecosystem 
around it, that there is some advantage to it.

But there isn't.